Trump's Return and the 'Wild Card' Effect on Cannabis Policy: Could His Unpredictable Stance Mean Progress or Stagnation for Reform

As Donald Trump prepares to return to the White House, cannabis industry leaders and advocates are once again left guessing what the next few years might hold for federal marijuana reform. Throughout his political career, Trump’s policy positions on cannabis have been a complex mix of support, ambiguity, and sudden reversals. For an industry already balancing on a legal tightrope between state and federal laws, his return presents both potential opportunities and uncertainties that could reshape the future of cannabis in the U.S.

One bright spot for the cannabis industry came in September when Trump pledged support for rescheduling marijuana, passing the SAFE Banking Act, and adopting what he termed “common-sense laws” around cannabis policy. His promise has created optimism within the cannabis sector, where industry executives are hopeful that this time Trump will deliver on his campaign commitments. If he follows through, the U.S. cannabis industry could see significant advances in access to banking and protections that the SAFE Banking Act promises. The sector could even experience growth through a potential federal rescheduling, albeit one that falls short of full legalization.

However, many industry insiders acknowledge that Trump’s past approach to cannabis has been a mixed bag. While he avoided direct opposition to state-led cannabis markets during his first term, his administration also appointed Jeff Sessions as attorney general in 2018—a well-known opponent of marijuana who repealed Obama-era protections for state-legal cannabis businesses. Although Trump eventually fired Sessions and refrained from taking further action against state-legal markets, this series of events highlighted his unpredictable stance on the issue.

One defining characteristic of Trump’s political style is his unpredictability, which may be both a boon and a challenge for cannabis advocates. Industry players have noted that Trump may lean toward a libertarian approach that focuses on state autonomy and regulatory rollbacks—an approach that could allow states to maintain control over cannabis markets but would do little to resolve the barriers posed by federal prohibition. For example, without federal legislative support, cannabis businesses could remain excluded from essential banking services, perpetuating risks and costs associated with cash-only operations.

Industry leaders like Avis Bulbulyan, a cannabis consultant based in Los Angeles, speculate that Trump’s approach to cannabis could differ sharply from Democratic proposals, avoiding heavy taxation and regulation in favor of free-market principles. Yet, this laissez-faire approach could leave core issues unresolved, especially for multi-state operators and cannabis firms seeking federal protections to expand across state lines.

The cannabis sector’s hope for reform is not limited to Trump’s promises or potential congressional action. With partisan gridlock looming in Congress, some industry stakeholders believe that the courts may play an increasingly vital role in advancing federal cannabis reform. Poseidon, a cannabis investment firm, has underscored the significance of the Commerce Clause lawsuit, which seeks to challenge the current federal restrictions on cannabis based on interstate trade rights. With a hearing in the First Circuit Court of Appeals next month, the lawsuit could become a pivotal moment for cannabis reform, one that Trump’s administration may find difficult to ignore.

While Trump’s support for rescheduling cannabis is viewed as progress, industry advocates point out that rescheduling—likely to place cannabis in Schedule II—would keep the plant classified as a controlled substance, maintaining regulatory restrictions that hinder interstate commerce and impose federal compliance costs on cannabis businesses. For many in the industry, de-scheduling, which would remove cannabis from the Controlled Substances Act entirely, remains the ultimate goal.

The question, however, is whether Trump would consider such a radical move. His tendency to pivot on policy issues leaves open the possibility of a change in stance, especially as he assesses the political climate and the outcome of state-level legalization efforts. For instance, recent cannabis ballot measures, including one in his home state of Florida, failed on Election Day. If Trump interprets these results as a sign that voters are cooling on legalization, he may hesitate to support bolder reforms.

With the SAFE Banking Act still awaiting bipartisan support and cannabis rescheduling unfinished, the industry’s outlook hinges on both Trump’s follow-through and Congress’s ability to pass reform. Trump’s past pardons for individuals convicted of marijuana offenses suggest that he may be open to reform in principle, yet his administration’s potential embrace of state-led autonomy could keep federal reform stagnant. A state-centric policy, while beneficial for established cannabis markets, could stymie efforts to create a cohesive federal framework that would empower smaller businesses, encourage cross-state investment, and alleviate banking challenges.

Ultimately, the cannabis industry is left in a familiar position: preparing for both the best and worst of possibilities. A second Trump administration could either be a turning point for federal cannabis reform or another chapter of uncertainty, with the president’s “wild card” factor looming over every potential legislative decision.

Could Trump's 'Wild Card' Presidency Push Cannabis Reform or Keep it in Limbo?